tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7268813616456268351.post1749276445860713283..comments2023-12-26T21:16:40.265-05:00Comments on the hunting of the snark: Fit 6, Page 64, Panel 2 … black swan, white snarkMahendra Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15308770582240496910noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7268813616456268351.post-65186116650715632372011-06-13T10:37:42.083-04:002011-06-13T10:37:42.083-04:00Thanks for the tip, the link is fixed. My wife say...Thanks for the tip, the link is fixed. My wife says that eating swan (literally duck-rajah, right?) and duck is a big thing amongst certain Assamese. She hates both dishes but I love them, hence, I'll never taste the echt-Assamese versions. I've seen the recipe, it looks super. It's like cooking Snark but not as spicy.<br /><br />I used to raise swans, they're pyschotically deranged and profoundly stupid, almost on the level of a chicken or guinea-fowl. And don't get me started on guinea-fowl, they're the Martin Heideggers of the barnyard.Mahendra Singhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15308770582240496910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7268813616456268351.post-45381624392692107022011-06-13T09:24:35.539-04:002011-06-13T09:24:35.539-04:00Cognate is sufficient for your purposes. Can you t...Cognate is sufficient for your purposes. Can you tell us something more about the Assamese swan obsession? The Will Elder link seems to be broken, by the bye.be_slayedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02920742528327860445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7268813616456268351.post-9218506922642681802011-06-13T08:31:37.726-04:002011-06-13T08:31:37.726-04:00Thanks for clarifying, I guess cognate is good eno...Thanks for clarifying, I guess cognate is good enough for my nefarious purposes. As usual, the French are to blame. Or maybe the Assamese, with their swan obsession!<br /><br />The PIE is mickle hard to parse for us amateurs!<br /><br />Be forewarned, I loathe Heidegger and he's about to get a heapin' helpin' of humiliation at my inky hands in the pages to come.Mahendra Singhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15308770582240496910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7268813616456268351.post-34897049455538715492011-06-13T08:22:50.481-04:002011-06-13T08:22:50.481-04:00A delightful illustration and explication!
I feel...A delightful illustration and explication!<br /><br />I feel constrained to point out though that "sound" doesn't actually *derive* from "swan". Rather they are *cognate*, relatives.<br /><br />"Sound" comes into English through Anglo-Norman "soun" (cp. Old French "son"). The "-d" is a later, 'excrescent' development, similar to that of modern English "thunder" (the word in Old English is "þunor" with no "-d-"; cp. Old Norse "þórr", a component of our "Thursday"). The OED mentions the disdain of certain 16th-century prescriptivists for this excrescent "d": '...The form with excrescent -d finally established itself in the 16th cent., but is condemned by Stanyhurst as late as 1582 (Æneid To Reader, p. 11)...'<br /><br />"Swan", on the other hand, is a Teutonic word, rather than an import like "soun(d)". Both "sound" (through French, ultimately from Latin) and "swan" can, however, be traced back to the same Proto-Indo-European root, "*swen-" 'to sound, to make noise'; whence also Sanskrit "svánati" [स्वनति] '(it) sounds', the ancestor of the Hindi noun "san" [सन] 'whistling, whizzing, jingling; thrill; darting pain' and also the related verbal form "sanaknaa" [सनकना] 'to make a subdued noise or sound, etc.' <br /><br />That said, I am enchanted by Heidegger's swan bagpipe!be_slayedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02920742528327860445noreply@blogger.com